Comments on: Nanodot readers invited to create/edit nano-scenarioshttp://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2738
examining transformative technologyMon, 02 May 2016 14:06:02 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4By: Steve Monizhttp://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2738#comment-579065
Steve MonizFri, 09 May 2008 20:48:37 +0000http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2738#comment-579065The nanotech scenarios discussion could benefit from a more formal treatment, in the style of Peter Schwartz/Global Business Network (GBN) scenarios. Wired magazine has a good synopsis at http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html.
On the strategic scale, Foresight might develop a global scenario, very much like the one in the Wired article. For the details, ASU might develop a few GBN scenarios for their specific “projects”. The overall process of scenario generation is the same.
First, you decide which TWO questions best express your uncertainties about the future, with respect to your project or closely related set of projects. The magazine article describes four broad categories of “drivers of future change”. These are given below, with a sample relevant question:
Social: Will the public accept this?
Economic: Will it be expensive for the average consumer?
Political: Will the government control the technology tightly?
Technological: Will the developments come rapidly or slowly?
The last two questions are more appropriate for Foresight than ASU. Let us assume ASU feels that the first two are most relevant (for all but the Sewers project, probably). The next step is to map the scenario in PowerPoint. In the middle of the page, draw a horizontal line labeled “Unacceptable” on the left to “Acceptable” on the right. Bisect that with a vertical line labeled “Cheap” to “Expensive”. Then, draw four ovals in the corners. These will hold the names of the four future worlds at the extremes of these two conditions of uncertainty (cost and acceptability).
Start a discussion about the environments in the corners. In a world of expensive nano and a hostile public, we might expect some rich people to defy opinion. We might label that oval the “Super Villain” world. (Try to keep the names cute – it helps the discussion.) With a hostile public, but cheap nano, we might get “Witch Hunt”. If nano is popular and cheap, we get “Cyborg Central”. If it’s popular but expensive only a few people will get super-powers, like the “X-Men” (though they aren’t that popular – this world’s name is still up for grabs). Flesh out the details of these worlds from discussions on the blog. Then publish a one or two page storyline for each world. This will create a common ground for discussion.
When discussing the future, it’s always good to vary your assumptions. GBN-style scenarios are good for that. The process of building these scenarios is instructive in itself. For five of the six technologies on the ASU site we would actually start by relaxing the first assumption. “Are these the most important elements of uncertainty with respect to this project?”
For Foresight, the project is nanotech itself (or just molecular manufacturing?). What are the two most important uncertainties? Opinions?The nanotech scenarios discussion could benefit from a more formal treatment, in the style of Peter Schwartz/Global Business Network (GBN) scenarios. Wired magazine has a good synopsis at http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html.

On the strategic scale, Foresight might develop a global scenario, very much like the one in the Wired article. For the details, ASU might develop a few GBN scenarios for their specific “projects”. The overall process of scenario generation is the same.

First, you decide which TWO questions best express your uncertainties about the future, with respect to your project or closely related set of projects. The magazine article describes four broad categories of “drivers of future change”. These are given below, with a sample relevant question:
Social: Will the public accept this?
Economic: Will it be expensive for the average consumer?
Political: Will the government control the technology tightly?
Technological: Will the developments come rapidly or slowly?

The last two questions are more appropriate for Foresight than ASU. Let us assume ASU feels that the first two are most relevant (for all but the Sewers project, probably). The next step is to map the scenario in PowerPoint. In the middle of the page, draw a horizontal line labeled “Unacceptable” on the left to “Acceptable” on the right. Bisect that with a vertical line labeled “Cheap” to “Expensive”. Then, draw four ovals in the corners. These will hold the names of the four future worlds at the extremes of these two conditions of uncertainty (cost and acceptability).

Start a discussion about the environments in the corners. In a world of expensive nano and a hostile public, we might expect some rich people to defy opinion. We might label that oval the “Super Villain” world. (Try to keep the names cute – it helps the discussion.) With a hostile public, but cheap nano, we might get “Witch Hunt”. If nano is popular and cheap, we get “Cyborg Central”. If it’s popular but expensive only a few people will get super-powers, like the “X-Men” (though they aren’t that popular – this world’s name is still up for grabs). Flesh out the details of these worlds from discussions on the blog. Then publish a one or two page storyline for each world. This will create a common ground for discussion.

When discussing the future, it’s always good to vary your assumptions. GBN-style scenarios are good for that. The process of building these scenarios is instructive in itself. For five of the six technologies on the ASU site we would actually start by relaxing the first assumption. “Are these the most important elements of uncertainty with respect to this project?”

For Foresight, the project is nanotech itself (or just molecular manufacturing?). What are the two most important uncertainties? Opinions?